• From: Jason Diamond <jason@i...>
• To: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@h...>, xml-dev@l...
• Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 00:28:10 -0800

> This approach covers it all.  The purpose of each xlink is given
> in human and
> machine form,  the nature of the resource itself is indicated by the role
> attribute.  In this example, we can clearly distinguish between
> the purpose
> and the nature of each resource, even when the same kind of
> resource is used
> for different purposes.

Your example details exactly what I was imagining. Thanks for providing such
a clear explanation.

I especially appreciate your choice of words: purpose and nature! Words like
"type" need to be wiped from our vocabulary.

I'm assuming that you intend for a resource's purpose to be identified by
its xlink:arcrole attribute and its nature by its xlink:role attribute, no?

Jason.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Should xlink:arcrole or xlink:role be the primary way to dispatchon related resources? was Re: URIs, names and well known RDDL names,
    • From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@h...>
  • Re: Should xlink:arcrole or xlink:role be the primary way to dispatchon related resources? was Re: URIs, names and well known RDDL names,
    • From: ht@c... (Henry S. Thompson)

• References:
  • Re: Should xlink:arcrole or xlink:role be the primary way to dispatchon related resources? was Re: URIs, names and well known RDDL names,
    • From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@h...>

• Prev by Date: RE: RDDL: Namespace URIs as document types. was Re: URIs,names and well known RDDL names
• Next by Date: Re: URIs, names and well known RDDL names, was: Re: Quick edit
• Previous by thread: Re: Should xlink:arcrole or xlink:role be the primary way to dispatchon related resources? was Re: URIs, names and well known RDDL names,
• Next by thread: Re: Should xlink:arcrole or xlink:role be the primary way to dispatchon related resources? was Re: URIs, names and well known RDDL names,
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread